Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

So ~15% of people who have played MLB meet the minimum requirements (played 10 years). Over half of those never see the ballot because the screening committee bumps them. Another half I would guess don't get 5% of the vote - you're down to <4% get 5% or greater on a Hall of Fame ballot. That's your Hall of Very Good, 3-5% of all players. I'm okay with that.

It's good to see Bert pass 70% of the votes, but having him get 74.2% is just torture. The worst part is that if he got in this year, I would be able to attend the ceremony, but I won't be able to go next year. :(

Hmm. Despite my dozens of posts updating McGwire's tally -- including my official prediction that his percentage would increase -- it turns out he did no better than usual. Repoz, your machine is broken.

He should demand a recount. Refuse to concede until they go through and re-examine every one of those Butterfly ballots. After all, HOF voters are not the sharpest tools in the shed - they may have been confused by the complicated ballot instructions.

You know, when that HOF guy who should never be put in front of a camera again said "One man will be joining them", I immediately thought it was Alomar, and then had to think back to the totals to correct myself.

Incidentally, while I was the first to throw out a "the Machine is broken" joke, I want to thank Repoz for taking the time and effort to compile all these votes. Even if the Machine isn't 100% accurate it's still fun to keep tabs on the ballots.

Incidentally, while I was the first to throw out a "the Machine is broken" joke, I want to thank Repoz for taking the time and effort to compile all these votes. Even if the Machine isn't 100% accurate it's still fun to keep tabs on the ballots.

Thirded, though - if I could offer up one machine enhancement, it should have the ability to put a foot up Jay Marriotti's ass.

Despite the voting instructions specifically saying not to cast a vote for a particular feat ("No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted"), Larsen lasted the full 15 years on the ballot, getting 492 votes total.

Guys who scored worse on the ballot than on the Repoz-meter: Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Raines, Martinez, McGwire, Trammell
Guys who did better in the balloting: Morris, Lee Smith, Mattingly, Parker
Dawson, McGriff, and Murphy were effectively a wash.

The first group is largely players who are lauded by the posters here, and the second group gets little support. It appears that voters who are willing to publish and discuss their ballots are somewhat more in agreement with the sabermetric community than those who keep theirs secret.

Despite the voting instructions specifically saying not to cast a vote for a particular feat ("No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted"), Larsen lasted the full 15 years on the ballot, getting 492 votes total.

Those writers should have had their ballots taken away from them. Seriously. Larsen in the HOF would have made Rube Marquard look like Cy Young.

I would have loved to hear their excuses for voting for him without appearing to break the rules, though.

You can't take a historical number like that and apply it to a one-year sample. Hall of Famers have longer careers than other players, so the fraction of HOFers who are active at any given time will be higher than their historical proportion of the population.

Yeah, the real question is what percentage of games, or what percentage of seasons, have been played by HOFers. I suspect that's higher than 1%.

The first group is largely players who are lauded by the posters here, and the second group gets little support. It appears that voters who are willing to publish and discuss their ballots are somewhat more in agreement with the sabermetric community than those who keep theirs secret.

That's because the first group doesn't have to make up reasons to vote or not to vote for a candidate as much as the second group has to.

Yeah, the real question is what percentage of games, or what percentage of seasons, have been played by HOFers. I suspect that's higher than 1%.

Here's one way to estimate the number of active hall of famers. First, look at the number of players that debut in a typical year:

2009 168
2008 238
2007 211
2006 220
2005 206
2004 208

The average is 208.5 newbies per year. Applying the percentage determined earlier (1.43%) we would expect 2.98 hall of famers to debut each year.

How long is the career of the average hall of famer? I don't know; maybe 17 years for those debuting in the last 80 years and giving credit for war service, it's something like that. So we should expect about 50 (2.98 times 17) currently active players to make the Hall.

Without studying it too much, I would vote for Bagwell, Walker, Brown, and Palmeiro. But I couldn't do that, since I'd also vote for Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, McGriff, McGwire, Murphy, Raines, and Trammell. I don't know which two I would cut. Maybe Palmeiro for one. Not sure about the other. If the damn BBWAA would elect enough people, I wouldn't have this problem.

EDIT: In practice, if I were an actual HoF voter, the other guy I'd cut would probably be Alomar, since I'd figure that he'll get enough anyway. But I don't like to think about it like that.

I have a vague recollection, from way back in my youth, discussions about whether Larsen was a HoFer or not. Scoff now, but once upon a time there were actually people that thought 9 perfect innings in the WS made you a HoFer.

...which just goes to show that while the writers actually do better overall, given 15 years to pull their heads out their asses, than we generally complain -- there's still a significant number of morons that have difficulty fielding a full roster of neurons.

I had been thinking that this notion was silly - McGwire's not doing well, but he's over 20% after all. But #389 and #391 point out that this is surprisingly likely. In addition to not getting any votes from the anti-steroids crowd, Palmeiro could easily get squeezed off the ballots of a "sabermetric"-inclined voter who prefers peak to career. Even taking his numbers at face value, I could see him pretty easily landing 11th or 12th on my mock ballot next year. Wow.

I had been thinking that this notion was silly - McGwire's not doing well, but he's over 20% after all. But #389 and #391 point out that this is surprisingly likely. In addition to not getting any votes from the anti-steroids crowd, Palmeiro could easily get squeezed off the ballots of a "sabermetric"-inclined voter who prefers peak to career.

To me he's deserving.

That said, absent the steroids issue he'd have been an interesting test case for unstoppable projectile meets immovable object: "He didn't feel like a Hall of Famer... but I always vote for players with 3,000 hits and 500 home runs!"

I had been thinking that this notion was silly - McGwire's not doing well, but he's over 20% after all. But #389 and #391 point out that this is surprisingly likely. In addition to not getting any votes from the anti-steroids crowd, Palmeiro could easily get squeezed off the ballots of a "sabermetric"-inclined voter who prefers peak to career. Even taking his numbers at face value, I could see him pretty easily landing 11th or 12th on my mock ballot next year.

Ditto. Looking at DL's list in 391, I cannot really see anyone from that list I wouldn't slot in front of Palmeiro. I'm more dazzled by shiny career counting numbers than the average primate (and I honestly don't care much about steroids), but the only real options I personally would consider might be Walker or Brown - and I think both were clearly superior players to Palmeiro.

McGwire is "andro" and there is a question of whether it just kept him healthy or added a boost to his performance. There's a gray area there. Palmeiro is a compiler, pure and simple, and any discount at all puts him below the line. That and he has an actual failing steroid test.